I believe that Call of Duty: Black ops will turn out to be a better game than Halo: Reach. I believe this because first of all I'm not going to be judging because both of these games are both different time periods, but I am sure that Black ops will mostly be a more reliable game.

Using those definitions, I will take a look at how Halo: Reach improved upon Halo: 3 and how Call of Duty: Black Ops looks to improve upon Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. After that, I will show how Halo: Reach is more favorable than Call of Duty: Black Ops.

///I believe this because first of all I'm not going to be judging because both of these games are both different time periods, but I am sure that Black ops will mostly be a more reliable game.///

I am generally confused as to what you are trying to say here.

Moving on.

Halo 3's biggest issues lied in its lacking campaign. Short, predictable, quite simple. Reach really went above and beyond what the entire series had established previous to it. Critics cited that its plot was more smooth flowing and its landscapes were less repetitive. Also credited was a higher grade of difficulty, that increases in co-op mode, which provides veteran players with a challenge, unlike what Halo 3 had provided. [1]

Beyond Campaign, Halo: Reach offered an expansive Matchmaking list on Day 1, unlike what Halo: 3 had, Reach had a Competitive 4v4, Competitive 2v2, unranked Free For All, Unranked Team Slayer (Deathmatch), Unranked Team Objective, Big Team Battle (8v8) and Invasion (6v6 Spartans vs. Elites with different objectives). The ranking system for Multiplayer games has been changed, no longer based on winning or losing, but on personal performances in-game, this aspect has helped reduced any de-rankers (another large issue with Halo 3). [5]

Along with the expansive matchmaking lists, Halo: Reach offers a more advanced Veto system, where instead of voting off one map, the user is either faced with 3 Maps and Settings and the option None of the Above in anything but Arena, and in Arena the choice of two different maps one with the Slayer DMR settings and one with the Slayer Pro settings. This is a vast improvement from Vetoing one Map Setting to get a randomized Map Setting, that very possibly could be worse. [4]

Not only did Bungie take a considerable amount of time to improve its Forge System (a system in which the user can customize the maps included to produce their own variants). Notably with Forge World, a giant map which contains 5 different segments that allow for the user to create just about anything they want. (For example, a race track that extends through all 5 segments and takes anywhere from 5 - 30 minutes to complete.) This will allow for very unique competitive maps to screw around maps and anything in between. [3]

Now, instead of searching through Bungie Favorites and lurking on forums, you can now search through tagged user created content to find any specific file or style of map/playlist/video that you could want. This allows users to get competitive gametypes very easily, find new racing/zombie maps on the spot and even just find funny videos to keep themselves entertained.

Overall the game is a definite improvement from Halo 3 and in week one has greatly overshadowed it on all levels.

When looking at Modern Warfare 2, one of the largest complaints being that fully automatic weapons had little to no recoil (LMG's with foregrip, ACR, TAR) and judging off of the multiplayer trailer released, it seems as though all Automatic weapons once again have little to no recoil again. [2]

Also, possibly the largest complaint of the CoD series is players who camp (stay in one place) and a new killstreak reward is a camera which will allow campers to see when anyone is sneaking up on them, which promotes camping even more. [2]

Beyond those two major flaws, CoD MW2 also featured Commando/Marathon/Lightweight, which was met with dismay from a large amount of users. What Black Ops featured in its multiplayer trailer was a ballistic knife (throwing knife offspring) that shot straight and a lunge that seems a bit long. Neither help the game better itself from its predecessor. [2]

I see what yu are trying to say...as i make a point you cant really compare modern warfare 2 to black ops because black ops was more in the cold war. And second halo Reach is more leading from halo ODST because halo 3 had more problems

///as i make a point you cant really compare modern warfare 2 to black ops because black ops was more in the cold war.///

How else will you compare the gameplay? It's built off of the Call of Duty franchise and gameplay that the franchise has established through its years. Comparing it the most recent game released that has a similar build is the only logical way to go about deciding one whether or not its better.

Going off of what you're saying between the Cold War and Modern Warfare 2, I should compare Halo: Reach to Halo: 1/CE, because Halo: Reach takes place before it chronologically and by those standards, Halo: Reach has made huge strides in almost every field, whereas Black Ops will only have made minimal strides to its nearest, newest chronological title, World at War.

Point taken but as i said Black OPs can not be compared to Modern Warfare 2 because it was made by TreyArc and so was World at War so Infinity Ward has other plans since they weren't the makers of Black Ops.

@elicamacho22 Black ops is going to fail in comparison to halo Reach. Go watch some of the videos. It's Marathon/Lightweight/Commando Pro heaven. Also you made absolutely no points towards your side. hence my reason for voting how I have.

I'm afraid the franchises success and online longevity are quite different...and beside that, your opinion on the game is outweighed by the sheer number of players who didn't get bored of it after 1 month.